DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Reference numeral 59 [0036] is not shown in the drawings.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference numerals 58, 66 in (fig 9) not described in the specification.
Reference numerals 94, 96, 72, 83, 55 in (fig 8) not described in the specification.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 8 shows incorrectly the orientation of the assembly order of the device. Some of the element’s orientation are incorrect. For example, element number 5 should be rotated in the opposite direction like it is shown in figure 9.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kohlbrenner et al. (US 20190022332 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kohlbrenner teaches a brake tower (120; Fig. 4-6; [0076] for a medical injection device (Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a proximal end (fig 6, right side of the page)), distal end 124 having a distal face (at 140), and sidewall at 122 therebetween defining a longitudinal axis; and
one or more protrusions at 140,141 (figs 5a-6; via ball bearing ring 140) arranged on and extending distally the distal face and one or more protrusions 122 extending from the sidewall (fig 6).
Regarding claim 2, Kohlbrenner discloses the one or more protrusions are integral to the sidewall and the distal face (figs 6).
Regarding claim 6, Kohlbrenner discloses the one or more protrusions comprise a polymer ([0066] any of the components can be made out of plastic. Plastic contains polymers.).
Regarding claim 12, the proximal end, the distal end, and the sidewall define a cylinder (fig 6).
Regarding claim 13, Kohlbrenner discloses the distal end 124 has a larger circumference than the proximal end and/or the sidewall (fig 6 at 124).
Regarding claim 14, Kohlbrenner discloses the sidewall defines an interior that is at least partially hollow (fig 4).
Regarding claim 15, Kohlbrenner discloses the distal face comprises two to ten protrusions arranged thereon (fig 5a).
Regarding claim 16, Kohlbrenner discloses a medical injection device comprising:
a housing 10,20 having a distal end and a proximal end;
a brake tower 120 comprising a proximal end, a distal end having a distal face at 124, and a sidewall 121 therebetween defining a longitudinal axis, and one or more protrusions arranged on and extending distally from the sidewall 122 and/or the distal face 141 (figs. 4 and 5b);
one or more a cartridge 40 received within the housing distally of the brake tower and holding a composition therein (figs 2-3);
a cartridge housing 30 received within the housing distally of the brake member 120 and configured to hold the cartridge therein;
an injection needle 32 at a distal end of the housing and in fluid communication with the cartridge; and
an actuation member 80 at a proximal end of the housing, the actuation member configured to actuate the medical injection device to deliver the composition through the injection needle, wherein the one or more protrusions arranged on and extending distally from the sidewall and/or the distal face of the brake tower bias the cartridge distally [0076].
105
Claims 1, 2, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quinn et al. (US 20140046268 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Quinn teaches a brake tower (5; Figs. 2b and 6) for a medical injection device (51; Fig. 1-2B; para [0093)), comprising:
a proximal end (end of 5 where 54 is disposed; Fig. 6), distal end (end of 5 where instances of 55 are disposed; Fig. 6) having a distal face (distalmost flat face of 5; Fig. 6-7), and a sidewall at 52 and 66 therebetween defining a longitudinal axis; and
one or more protrusions at 52 and 66 arranged on and extending distally from the sidewall (fig 6).
Regarding claim 2, Quinn discloses the one or more protrusions 52,66 are integral to the sidewall (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, the proximal end, the distal end, and the sidewall define a cylinder (figs 2b, 6).
Regarding claim 13, the distal end 66 has a larger circumference than the proximal end and/or the sidewall [0102].
Regarding claim 14, the sidewall defines an interior that is at least partially hollow (fig. 22-28; [0108] brake tower 205 including a core 220).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohlbrenner et al. (US 20190022332 A1).
Kohlbrenner discloses the invention substantially as claimed, and discloses in [0066] that all the components can be made from listed appropriate materials including plastic. However, Kohlbrenner fails to disclose the polymer comprises a thermoplastic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kohlbrenner by selecting a thermoplastic from a polymer(plastic) since it would be considered a mere design choice well within the skill of the ordinary artisan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cris L Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)272-4964. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 8am- 2pm..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cris L. Rodriguez/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3783